Dear Google: Parody Is Not Trademark Infringement

Say it ain't so, Google. Two weeks ago, the awesome activists at the Peng! Collective launched a funny and smart satirical site, google-nest.org, which purported to offer a host of new Google "products," pairing the launch with a public announcement at the Re:publica 2014 conference in Berlin. The spoof site included products such as Google Trust (data “insurance”), Google Bee (personal drones), Google Hug (location-based crowdsourced hug matching) and Google Bye (an online profile for the afterlife). The goal: raise awareness about Google's privacy policies, which Peng! believes are hypocritical. The spoof was great success, prompting a wave of commentary and coverage that recognized it for the satire that it was.

Unfortunately, Google's skin was not thick enough to withstand this relatively gently ribbing. The company wrote a polite note to the collective, expressing their sincere respect for political commentary—but nonetheless demanding that Peng! revise the site and assign the domain name to Google. Note to Google: polite trademark bullying is still bullying.

EFF responded to Google on Peng's behalf, explaining what should be obvious: the site was pure noncommercial political commentary. Trademark owners should not and cannot punish activists simply because they happen to use trademarks in the course of that kind of commentary.

As it happens, having made its initial point, Peng! has in fact chosen to revise the site to document Google's unfortunate response. But Peng! has refused to transfer the domain name. So the ball is back in Google's court and the company must choose whether or not to do the right thing.

There are plenty of smart trademark lawyers at Google; they should know they blew it this time. Having foolishly started this fight, Google ought to apologize and end it.

Related Updates

Rejecting years of settled precedent, a federal court in New York has ruled [PDF] that you could infringe copyright simply by embedding a tweet in a web page. Even worse, the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets. If adopted by other...

In a case illustrating copyright abuse of standard software protocols, Cisco Systems filed a lawsuit to prevent its competitor, Arista Networks, from building competing Ethernet switches that rely in part on commands Cisco argues it initially developed. A jury rightly found that Arista was not liable for copyright infringement based...

If you watched this year’s Super Bowl, you might have seen an advertisement for Dodge Ram featuring a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. voiceover. To criticize the ad, and to show how antithetical it was to King’s views, Current Affairs magazine created a new version. The ...

Threat of Imprisonment for Colombian Scientist Demonstrates the Far-Reaching Implications of Copyright Policy In 2011, Colombian graduate student Diego Gómez did something that hundreds of people do every day: he shared another student’s Master’s thesis with colleagues over the Internet. He didn’t know that that simple, common act could ...

Washington, D.C.—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the Librarian of Congress today to limit the legal barriers people face when they want to repair and modify software-enabled products, so that they—not manufacturers— control the appliances, computers, toys, vehicles, and other products they own. In comments filed in Washington D.C. today...

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors are a vital protection for websites and Internet services of all sizes. But thanks to a new Copyright Office rule, website owners could lose safe harbor protections if they don’t register online by December 31. And that’s not all: Hollywood lobbyists are...

A photographer and a photo agency are teaming up to restart a legal war against online linking in the United States. When Internet users browse websites containing images, those images often are retrieved from third-parties, rather than the author of the website. Sometimes, unbeknownst to the website author, the linked...

It’s almost too strange to believe, but a federal court ruled earlier this year that copyright can be used to control access to parts of our state and federal laws—forcing people to pay a fee or sign a contract to read and share them. On behalf of Public.Resource.Org...